Which makes the argument even much more preposterous--a finer contradiction of logic we will seldom see. The statement has been made by Dawkins, by Dawkins, by Dawkins, over and over and over and over. Yes, we believe that Dawkins believes that Natural Selection always Ã¢â‚¬Å“choosesÃ¢â‚¬Â for life or survival of the species and is not random.

Some of us have issues with Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“choosingÃ¢â‚¬Â something that is really not a choice in the strictest since of the word. It is internally illogical that something that is not alive could Ã¢â‚¬Å“chooseÃ¢â‚¬Â life. Where is the evidence that so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“natural selectionÃ¢â‚¬Â has ever left Ã¢â‚¬Å“ideaÃ¢â‚¬Â status? But, let's play the game.

Dawkins uses the idea, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â as if it is both random and not random (laws of Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â are not random). He also uses Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection as if it is sentient. He says that natural Selection is not a live being but infers that Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â has lifelike qualities. Somehow, Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â knows the difference between death and life and always chooses life. I wonder could it be a virus? Obviously, It would seem to to be random if it "chose" death some of the time. So to cover that prevarication, Dawkins and evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s never consider death a Ã¢â‚¬Å“choiceÃ¢â‚¬Â even though plenty of things die. Acknowledging that would make natural selection seem to random? When has Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â chosen for an organism or species not to live? All the time!! But no, ignore all the dead critters everywhere on the forest floor. EvoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hero Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection Ã¢â‚¬Â only chooses for survival. If something dies, to bad. But evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hero canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be associated with death. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s negative PR! We are supposed to ignore all the critters that die. Nope, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t blame Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection for death that would make natural selection seem to... to random.

Evolution is a prevarication upon a prevarication. When one prevarication is exposed, evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Just fabricate another prevarication to deal with the one people see holes in. Someday the whole house of cards is going to fall exposing it for what it is an incredible prevarication upon a prevarication ad-nauseam.

Laws like gravity are always constant in how they act on objects. Inferring or saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â is a law adds to the confusion over the issue of evolution.

Where is the prestidigitation? Take a look at the meaning of mutation (random). What evo scientists have done is emphasize that mutation (random) comes before Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection.Ã¢â‚¬Â Voila! Natural selection is no longer random even though the effect is the same! ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I am not saying what I am saying.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“selectsÃ¢â‚¬Â from a random? Sounds like Ã¢â‚¬Å“randomÃ¢â‚¬Â by any other name. Spin!

Which makes the argument even much more preposterous--a finer contradiction of logic we will seldom see. The statement has been made by Dawkins, by Dawkins, by Dawkins, over and over and over and over. Yes, we believe that Dawkins believes that Natural Selection always Ã¢â‚¬Å“choosesÃ¢â‚¬Â for life or survival of the species and is not random.

Some of us have issues with Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“choosingÃ¢â‚¬Â something that is really not a choice in the strictest since of the word. It is internally illogical that something that is not alive could Ã¢â‚¬Å“chooseÃ¢â‚¬Â life. Where is the evidence that so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“natural selectionÃ¢â‚¬Â has ever left Ã¢â‚¬Å“ideaÃ¢â‚¬Â status? But, let's play the game.

Dawkins uses the idea, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â as if it is both random and not random (laws of Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â are not random). He also uses Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection as if it is sentient. He says that natural Selection is not a live being but infers that Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â has lifelike qualities. Somehow, Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â knows the difference between death and life and always chooses life. I wonder could it be a virus? Obviously, It would seem to to be random if it "chose" death some of the time. So to cover that prevarication, Dawkins and evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s never consider death a Ã¢â‚¬Å“choiceÃ¢â‚¬Â even though plenty of things die. Acknowledging that would make natural selection seem to random? When has Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â chosen for an organism or species not to live? All the time!! But no, ignore all the dead critters everywhere on the forest floor. EvoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hero Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection Ã¢â‚¬Â only chooses for survival. If something dies, to bad. But evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hero canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be associated with death. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s negative PR! We are supposed to ignore all the critters that die. Nope, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t blame Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection for death that would make natural selection seem to... to random.

Evolution is a prevarication upon a prevarication. When one prevarication is exposed, evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Just fabricate another prevarication to deal with the one people see holes in. Someday the whole house of cards is going to fall exposing it for what it is an incredible prevarication upon a prevarication ad-nauseam.

Laws like gravity are always constant in how they act on objects. Inferring or saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â is a law adds to the confusion over the issue of evolution.

Where is the prestidigitation? Take a look at the meaning of mutation (random). What evo scientists have done is emphasize that mutation (random) comes before Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection.Ã¢â‚¬Â Voila! Natural selection is no longer random even though the effect is the same! ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I am not saying what I am saying.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“selectsÃ¢â‚¬Â from a random? Sounds like Ã¢â‚¬Å“randomÃ¢â‚¬Â by any other name. Spin!

I have always understood selection in terms of a boundary, rather than a driving force. Life is the driving force, selection has to do with guidance in what gets reproduced. What comes down the phylogenetic tree. I don't disagree with selection in principle--there is nature (ecology and biology) in "natural." And choosing in "selection." Does nature choose? Well yes and no. Not as a person chooses, but when a weaker male lion is defeated for rights to the pride--this is nature choosing the genes. When a genetic defect affects the fitness of the animal and it dies--this is nature choosing. So in one sense NS guides by strengthening the species. But in another in deletes undesirable traits at times. But there is always bad traits in a population.

But I see in a general sense--it is working to guard against weaknesses, and to guide in S@xual selection. This by no means infers anything further in my book. Not because I'm a Christian, but because there is no proof that it's partner--random mutation--is up to the task of making new things through the microbiological processes.

Which makes theÃ‚Â argument even much more preposterous--a finer contradiction of logic we will seldom see.Ã‚Â The statement has been made by Dawkins, by Dawkins, by Dawkins, over and over and over and over.Ã‚Â Yes, we believe that Dawkins believes that Natural Selection always Ã¢â‚¬Å“choosesÃ¢â‚¬Â for life or survival of the species and is not random.Ã‚Â

Some of usÃ‚Â have issues with Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“choosingÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â something that is really not a choice in the strictest since of the word. It is internally illogical that something that is not alive could Ã¢â‚¬Å“chooseÃ¢â‚¬Â life. Where is the evidence thatÃ‚Â Ã‚Â so called Ã¢â‚¬Å“natural selectionÃ¢â‚¬Â has ever left Ã¢â‚¬Å“ideaÃ¢â‚¬Â status?Ã‚Â But, let's play the game.

DawkinsÃ‚Â uses the idea, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â as if it is both random and not randomÃ‚Â (laws of Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â are not random).Ã‚Â He also uses Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection as if it is sentient. He saysÃ‚Â Ã‚Â that natural Selection is not a live being but infers that Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â has lifelike qualities. Somehow, Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â knows the difference betweenÃ‚Â death and lifeÃ‚Â and always chooses life. I wonder could it be a virus?Ã‚Â Obviously,Ã‚Â It would seem to to be random if it "chose" death some of the time. So to cover that prevarication, Dawkins and evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s never consider death a Ã¢â‚¬Å“choiceÃ¢â‚¬Â even though plenty ofÃ‚Â things die. Acknowledging that would make natural selectionÃ‚Â seem to random?Ã‚Â When hasÃ‚Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â chosen for an organism or species not to live? All the time!! But no,Ã‚Â ignore all the dead crittersÃ‚Â everywhere on the forest floor. EvoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hero Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection Ã¢â‚¬Â only chooses for survival.Ã‚Â If somethingÃ‚Â dies, to bad.Ã‚Â But evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hero canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be associated with death. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s negative PR!Ã‚Â We are supposed to ignore all the crittersÃ‚Â that die. Nope, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t blame Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection for death that would make natural selection seem to... to random.Ã‚Â

Evolution is a prevarication upon a prevarication.Ã‚Â When one prevarication is exposed,Ã‚Â evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Just fabricate another prevarication to deal with the one people seeÃ‚Â holes in. Someday the whole house of cards is going to fall exposing it for what it is an incredible prevarication upon a prevarication ad-nauseam.Ã‚Â

Laws like gravity are always constant in how they act on objects. Inferring or saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬Â is a law adds to the confusion over theÃ‚Â issue of evolution.

Where is the prestidigitation?Ã‚Â Take a look at the meaning of mutation (random). What evo scientists have done is emphasizeÃ‚Â that mutation (random) comesÃ‚Â before Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection.Ã¢â‚¬Â Voila!Ã‚Â Natural selection is no longerÃ‚Â random even thoughÃ‚Â the effect is the same! ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I am not saying what I am saying.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural SelectionÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“selectsÃ¢â‚¬Â from a random?Ã‚Â Sounds like Ã¢â‚¬Å“randomÃ¢â‚¬Â by any other name. Spin!

AFJI have always understood selection in terms of a boundary, rather than a driving force.Ã‚Â Life is the driving force, selection has to do with guidance in what gets reproduced, and what survives.Ã‚Â What comes down the phylogenetic tree.Ã‚Â I don't disagree with selection in principle--there is natureÃ‚Â in "natural." And choosing in "selection."Ã‚Â Does nature choose? Well yes and no. Not as a person chooses, but when a weaker male lion is defeated for rights to the pride--this is nature choosing the genes.Ã‚Â When a genetic defect affects the fitness of the animal and it dies--this is nature choosing.Ã‚Â So in one sense NS guides by strengthening the species.Ã‚Â In another sense it deletes undesirable traits at times, because there are always deleterious traits in a population.Ã‚Â

This begs the question of "where did the instinct to fight for S@xual rights come?"Ã‚Â It is a part of selection where the origin of the instinct did not come from the animals itself.Ã‚Â Or the reproduction of flowers--it requires symbiotic relationship with bees.Ã‚Â This is a system that requires instinctual guidance within the bee, and traits which correspond to that instinct within the flower.Ã‚Â But the instinct, nor the traits originated within them.

Science is reductionistic in that it breaks down things, isolates things, and believes the cause of things is found within the system or organism itself.

However the instincts involved in S@xual selection can not be attributed to the organisms themselves, no matter how you break them apart.Ã‚Â It obviously resides within the brain, but the data of selection is not learned or acquired--it is latent.Ã‚Â It is then passed down.Ã‚Â

Dawkins personifies NS by the argument (so I have read) that there "must be" a requisite condition in matter itself. One could go all the way back to the behavior the elements in the periodic table, and use the same argument again. Where did the behavior of the elements come from. They certainly did not come from themselves. One can keep on going back until somewhere one has to acknowledge a main Cause of all this.

Okay step one natural selection is not a being. It is a phenomenon. It is something that happens. A natural occurrence, if you will. When it is said that it 'selects' for something it is not implying and kind of conscious will or sentience behind it.

I don't know where the argument that the natural selection is actively dissociated from death is coming from. I mean, death is death who cares about PR? We could call the flu "Super Happy Funtime Sickness", but that just clouds the meaning and wastes the world's ink

As for the house of cards, I don't know if the removal of one card will do much at this point. Even if it is wrong it's a fairly solid structure. I mean, we're talking multiple decks here. I guess the long and short of it is that fields built on homology and evolution are fairly intertwined, and nothing is going to change over night. I mean, look at how much time it took schools to secularize. All the time.

There are some latent behaviors, but these are few and far between. In humans I think it's pretty much limited to rooting and not breathing underwater (the latter of which is very interesting).

Okay step one natural selection is not a being. It is a phenomenon. It is something that happens. A natural occurrence, if you will. When it is said that it 'selects' for something it is not implying and kind of conscious will or sentience behind it.

I don't know where the argument that the natural selection is actively dissociated from death is coming from. I mean, death is death who cares about PR? We could call the flu "Super Happy Funtime Sickness", but that just clouds the meaning and wastes the world's ink

As for the house of cards, I don't know if the removal of one card will do much at this point. Even if it is wrong it's a fairly solid structure. I mean, we're talking multiple decks here. I guess the long and short of it is that fields built on homology and evolution are fairly intertwined, and nothing is going to change over night. I mean, look at how much time it took schools to secularize. All the time.

There are some latent behaviors, but these are few and far between. In humans I think it's pretty much limited to rooting and not breathing underwater (the latter of which is very interesting).

pheÃ¢â‚¬Â¢nomÃ¢â‚¬Â¢eÃ¢â‚¬Â¢non fɪˈnɒm əˌnɒn,-nənShow Spelled[fi-nom-uh-non, -nuh n] Show IPA Ã¢â‚¬â€œnoun, plural -na -nəShow Spelled[-nuh] Show IPA or, especially for 3, -nons. 1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature. 2. something that is impressive or extraordinary. 3. a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder. 4. Philosophy . a. an appearance or immediate object of awareness in experience. b. Kantianism . a thing as it appears to and is constructed by the mind, as distinguished from a noumenon, or thing-in-itself. ________________________________________

Sorry GreasyJoe, now you are insulting a Bobcat and my alma mater. I re-learned the definition of Phenomenon in freshman composition class. I even remember my teachers name, Mrs. Wilson. Since the majority (which of course does not prove something right or wrong) says that evolution is to slow to observe, I wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t go there. By definition natural selection is not a Phenomenon.Moreover Natural selection is a concept which is a data array of Human Basic's relational data base. A concept is a bunch of ideas connected together to form an elaborate meaning. Concepts are the minds way of organizing abstract iideas. Evo has never left idea status as opposed to the automobule concept.

You are correct sir. It is not a being which is precisely the point. And since it is not a being it cannot make life and death decisions. I also learned at Peru State that there is a difference between prose and poetry. Unfortunately in our society today poetic terms have migrated into prose. Personification which means to give lifelike qualities to inanimate objects or ideas is widely used nowadays in prose. It makes for poor reasoning in prose. Here is an example by Carl Sandburg:

THE fog comes on little cat feet.

It sits looking over harbor and city on silent haunches 5and then moves on

Things die for various reasons most of which have nothing to do with some imaginary force, which is an i Ã¢â‚¬Å“IDEAÃ¢â‚¬Â of a creative human and refered to by humans as Ã¢â‚¬Å“Natural Selection.Ã¢â‚¬Â According to evo rules, if we canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t observe, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist. Pressures, what does it weigh?

In terms of homology they are finding out that totally disconnected species have similar things such as insects having legs and humans having legs but they have no common decent. Birds an incects have wings but no common decent either. According to my reading and I can give you the article locations, What looks like common decent is often different genetics.

We are close on the house of cards metaphor. But I like the "A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step" Chines proverb. Another is ; Ã¢â‚¬Å“All that is necessary for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬ËœSides I remind you evolution allegedly started out small so you are being a tad incongruent GreasyJoe.

Yes, I would agree with your boundary concept. But, the word I tried to emphasize is Ã¢â‚¬Å“IDEA.Ã¢â‚¬Â Natural Selection remains a metaphysical concept in the human mind that has not been manifested in the physical world. Nor, am I arguing that the physical world does not exist. Also I do not agree with evolutionary scientists idea that everything is physical or materialistic. I think we are a split of both.

Some evolutionary scientists talk about multiple universes. As Christians we believe there is a physical world and a spiritual world.But they do not allow us the same idea. go figure. Scientist generally don't believe there is a spiritual world. I am saying thought remains in a spiritual world and there is no physical evidence for it other than some of its manifestation as inventions of creative beings such as us.

May I say I enjoyed reading your posts immensely. I find them very introspective. You seem to be able to think about your thinking which to me is way cool.

The transition of an idea to a physical is a process which can be extremely difficult in some cases. Such is the problem found with the idea of evolution. In some cases what science refers to as evolution is really the implication of Mendelssohn's rules of heredity--allele fequency etc. The Bible says kind reproduces after kind with a great deal of variety. Then, the species wall goes up and that's where it stops.

One argument that scientists like Dawkins often use is that the eye is not a perfect design. I agree 100%. I perceive that my body is not a perfect body either. The thing that they think is that God would have to do everything by their definition of perfect. They will not acknowledge that God never said that the human body was supposed to be perfect.

When Jesus was on the earth, He refused to let people call him good. And yet his physical body was about as good as any. He said the only one that was good was his Father. I'm sure I don't have to remind you that God considers the nations of the earth as less than the dust on the balance. Actually, God criticizes the body more than any evolutionists has ever done. He says in the New Testament that this corruption must put on incorruption. He calls the body a tabernacle or temporary dwelling place. He points out that our perfect body will be made of spirit. So science is not wrong when they think the body is not perfect.

What they fail to realize is that God didn't make it perfect on purpose. They ignore the idea that they as intelligent creative beings have detected with their intelligence that engineering is much more efficient than random time and chance.
From my observation of God, He deliberately does things like this so that they have evidence that even if they think evolution happened, intelligent, creativity trumps it any day. See what I am saying?Ã¢â‚¬Â Out of their own mouth they freely admit that Ã¢â‚¬Å“their Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â is not as good as God. Intelligence is more efficient than than evolution any day. Their own brain is saying that to them when they think kthey are criticizing our God.

What is called natural selection has many definitions associated to it. It's hard to describe in prose without being exceedingly wordy I am sure you have noticed that my posts are often very long. I think the idea is to be short and sweet, However, my background and force of habit fights me there.

In terms of Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â it is another un born concept or idea masquerading as an entity. There are many, many, many non-existent entities (idols) allegedly doing things. They are the puppets that people animateÃ¢â‚¬â€neurotic agreements.

God wrote the software that allows us and animals to do the things we and they do. He wrote special software for each critter he created Can you flap your arms and fly? No. Can you make a sound like a lion? Our limitations are by design and software, both of which are mutually important indications of design. The only one doing any selecting is God and He says He knows every sparrow that falls to the Ground. Remember what Jesus told Pilate, "You can do nothing except my Father in heaven let you." Nada! Zilch ""0" Rien!!

Finally for us Christians, evolution, natural selection--whatever is a description of HOW GOD DID NO CREATE THE UNIVERSE. He tells us how He actually did it in His Book!

Well yes death happens for a multitude of reasons, but the basic concept is that organisms that are less suited to their environment die more often, which is completely logical. Natural selection necessarily occurs.

No, my card analogy wasn't supposed to prove anything, it was just an extension of YOUR card analogy.

Okay step one natural selection is not a being. It is a phenomenon. It is something that happens. A natural occurrence, if you will. When it is said that it 'selects' for something it is not implying and kind of conscious will or sentience behind it.

I don't know where the argument that the natural selection is actively dissociated from death is coming from. I mean, death is death who cares about PR? We could call the flu "Super Happy Funtime Sickness", but that just clouds the meaning and wastes the world's ink

As for the house of cards, I don't know if the removal of one card will do much at this point. Even if it is wrong it's a fairly solid structure. I mean, we're talking multiple decks here. I guess the long and short of it is that fields built on homology and evolution are fairly intertwined, and nothing is going to change over night. I mean, look at how much time it took schools to secularize. All the time.

There are some latent behaviors, but these are few and far between. In humans I think it's pretty much limited to rooting and not breathing underwater (the latter of which is very interesting).

I am curious as to what you think of the following statements. They were made by two people but not the same person.

Yes, I would agree with your boundaryÃ‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â concept.Ã‚Â But, the word I tried to emphasize is Ã¢â‚¬Å“IDEA.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â Ã‚Â Natural SelectionÃ‚Â remains a metaphysical concept in the human mind that has not been manifested in the physical world.

Well, I guess we should define selection then. Creationist scientist do acknowledge selective processes, both in S@xual selection, and a deleting effect on weaker traits --but not a hard and fast rule. For instance, the many genetic defects within the human population is evidence that selection allows less "fit" allelles to remain in a population--sometimes indefintely. Yes there are some that cause death before reproduction--and I say so what? What does that prove--quality control? So then, selection is real in nature, but to call it a driving force which somehow has catapulted perhaps millions of different allelles that worked together to accidently produce a pancreas--of course 1 step at a time.

Nor, am I arguing that the physical world does not exist. Also I do not agree with evolutionary scientists idea that everything is physical or materialistic. I think we are a split of both.Ã‚Â

Some evolutionary scientists talk about multiple universes. As Christians we believe there is a physical world and a spiritual world.But they do not allow us the same idea. go figure. Scientist generally don't believe there is a spiritual world. I am saying thought remains in a spiritual world and there is no physical evidence for it other than some of its manifestation as inventions of creative beings such as us.

Yes, I remember reading an article in Omni, about what is now called string theory. The thing is the physics is supposedly there from Einstein. Instead of admitting implications of a spiritual world, the scientists repel away from it, even from admitting a possibility of it. Instead they present periodic babbling on Discovery channel about string theory and "ancient astronauts." Some discovery (lol).

The transition of an idea to a physical is a process which can be extremely difficult in some cases. Such isÃ‚Â the problem found with the idea ofÃ‚Â evolution. In some cases what science refers to as evolution is really the implication of Mendelssohn's rules of heredity--allele fequency etc. The Bible says kind reproduces after kind with a great deal of variety.Ã‚Â Then, the species wall goes up and that's where it stops.

I agree. But evos like to attack when creationists use "species." It's a man made classification and creationists often set themselves up by using species wall. That makes us appear as if we believe in species fixity. I believe in "plyla fixity" a reptile never became a bird. Oregon State researchers are just looking at the truth. http://www.scienceda...90609092055.htm

One argument that scientists like Dawkins often use is that the eye is not a perfect design. I agree 100%. I perceive that my body is not a perfect body either. The thing that they think is that God would have to do everything by their definition of perfect. They will not acknowledge that God never said that the human body was supposed to be perfect.

Let's talk about predictions, since that is a beloved word by our evo friends. Their definition of "prediction" is to see the data and fit it in the model, and because they assume evolution happened, there are complete histories written to accomodate their "predictions." In other words, their predictions have come AFTER DARWIN. Any predictions that the Bible makes is BEFORE DARWIN.

The fall of man is before Darwin. Therefore if the data matches--such as sickness, cell death, mutations, "bad" design, etc. the prediction is a REAL prediction, not an after the fact prediction.

But this is what I call an incidental result of TRUTH. If you tell the truth about something, you may not be explaining every detail, but the data will later be found to not contradict a true testimony.

Out of their own mouth they freely admit that Ã¢â‚¬Å“their Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â is not as good as God. Intelligence is more efficient than than evolution any day. Their own brain is saying that to them when they think kthey are criticizing our God.

Yep. Dawkins is intelligent enough to decipher what is bad design. I don't know what he's complaining about. He obviously has good eyesight, becasue he has done alot of reading.

I am curious as to what you think of the following statements. They were made by two people but not the same person.

There is no God.There is no evolution.

Well I think they are the same in the respect that they both require some amount of faith and uncertainty, but I would also say that only some aspects of evolution can be disputed, whereas a belief (or lack thereof) in God relies entirely on personal convictions.

In my experience, people can tell you there is/are a God(s), but people can show you there is evolution. (except for macro evolution, which needs a smidgen of faith to mortar together the 'tenuous' building blocks of logic, fossils, and radiometric dating)

Your conditioned response was supposed to be "You can't prove a negatiive." That's what most evo's would have said. So science can't fairly say there is no God but they have been given special logic privleges reserved only evos.

Well I think they are the same in the respect that they both require some amount of faith and uncertainty, but I would also say that only some aspects of evolution can be disputed, whereas a belief (or lack thereof) in God relies entirely on personal convictions.Ã‚Â

In my experience, people can tell you there is/are a God(s), but people can show you there is evolution.Ã‚Â (except for macro evolution, which needs a smidgen of faith to mortar together the 'tenuous' building blocks of logic, fossils, and radiometric dating)

If you mean show you the face of God you are right. But Jesus said those who are born of the Spirit are like the wind. You can't see the wind, but you can feel and see it's effects.

You can see the effects of the Spirit in someone's life in two major ways. Behavior and supernatural power at times. I have seen a few in my life change their entire lifestyle and attitude after coming to meet the Lord. I have some go the other way too. Indicating there was something real there, and they left it behind--they are never really happy after that.

It is not turning over a new leaf, because many times a testimony of God's power in their heart comes out naturally in conversation--it is not worked up, and it is not forced.

You have to remember God is a real Person, and He has an effect on people because he is our Creator and Redeemer.

There is also inate power in the Word of God, that strengthens and settles the heart of man. Many evidences, but time is short.

The main difference between science and God and it's effects--science is all cranium. God is cranium and heart--the whole person.

If you mean show you the face of God you are right. But Jesus said those who are born of the Spirit are like the wind. You can't see the wind, but you can feel and see it's effects.

You can see the effects of the Spirit in someone's life in two major ways. Behavior and supernatural power at times. I have seen a few in my life change their entire lifestyle and attitude after coming to meet the Lord. I have some go the other way too. Indicating there was something real there, and they left it behind--they are never really happy after that.

It is not turning over a new leaf, because many times a testimony of God's power in their heart comes out naturally in conversation--it is not worked up, and it is not forced.

You have to remember God is a real Person, and He has an effect on people because he is our Creator and Redeemer.

There is also inate power in the Word of God, that strengthens and settles the heart of man. Many evidences, but time is short.

The main difference between science and God and it's effects--science is all cranium. God is cranium and heart--the whole person.

Well I think they are the same in the respect that they both require some amount of faith and uncertainty, but I would also say that only some aspects of evolution can be disputed, whereas a belief (or lack thereof) in God relies entirely on personal convictions.

In my experience, people can tell you there is/are a God(s), but people can show you there is evolution. (except for macro evolution, which needs a smidgen of faith to mortar together the 'tenuous' building blocks of logic, fossils, and radiometric dating)

Yet these building blocks are also made of sand, leaving not much evidence to help the evolutionists cause.

Logic: There is no logic in assuming that things evolved bit-by-bit. For example the digestive system of a human REQUIRES all parts be functional for it to function properly. Miss out one organ or function and it is useless and will lead to death. As such how can such a system logically come to be via gradualistic tendancies.

Fossils: The fossil record shows NO line of progression, there is no line of decent with transitional forms. All it is is fossils of independant kinds with assumed ancestry drawn in. Archeoptryx has been confirmed as a bird, a shoot-off lineage not a transitional form. Furthermore fossils of Confuciornus were found in China, around the same time as Archeopteryx, yet Confuciornus resembles almost exactly a modern bird....

radiometric dating: This is based wholly on assumptions, not the rock solid science most have mistaken it for. If I walked into a room with a burning candle in it, I can measure the amount the candle burns per minute / hour / etc... However I cannot workout how long the candle has been burning as I don't know the initial height of the candle. In radiometric dating, this height is assumed, and it is assumed as such to fit the information they want it to do. I have been told, many do not use radiometric dating anymore, and prefer to use the geo coloumn... Whereby the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils... Umm see the problem??